Jharkhand High Court Moves Against Advocate for 'Bullying' and 'Threatening' Judge on Live-Stream

A five-judge bench has initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate, citing an attempt to "brow-beat, bully and threaten" a single judge during a hearing that later went viral. The case highlights the judiciary's unwavering stance on courtroom decorum and the inherent tensions surrounding the live-streaming of proceedings.

---

RANCHI – The Jharkhand High Court has taken the extraordinary step of initiating suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against advocate Mahesh Tewari following a fiery exchange with a single judge that was captured on video and widely circulated online. The incident has ignited a serious debate within the legal fraternity about the boundaries of zealous advocacy, the sanctity of judicial authority, and the unforeseen consequences of court transparency through live-streaming.

In a swift response to the event, a specially constituted five-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Justice Ananda Sen, and Justice Rajesh Shankar, convened to address the matter. The bench, after viewing the video footage and perusing a transcript, issued a notice of criminal contempt, concluding that there was a prima facie case that Tewari's conduct undermined the majesty of the court.

The case, now formally titled Court on its Own Motion v/s Mahesh Tewari (Cont. Case (Criminal) No. 3 of 2025), is slated for its next hearing on November 11.

The Genesis of the Confrontation

The controversy stems from proceedings before Justice Rajesh Kumar on Thursday, October 16. The initial matter involved a client of Mr. Tewari whose electricity connection had been disconnected due to non-payment of bills. After some argument, the court directed that the connection be restored within 24 hours if the petitioner deposited ₹50,000 towards the outstanding dues.

However, the decorum of the courtroom deteriorated significantly after this case was concluded. According to the High Court's order, while a subsequent case was being heard, Mr. Tewari, who was not a party to that matter, stood up and interrupted the proceedings. The exchange quickly escalated, culminating in what the five-judge bench described as an attempt to "scandalize the Court."

The court's order detailed the gravity of the advocate's statements:

"...He not only used intemperate language, but also tried to brow beat threaten and bully the learned Judge Justice Rajesh Kumar. Further, the Opposite Party has tried to scandalize the Court by stating that, 'the country is burning with the 2 judiciary' and persisted that 'he would argue in his own way' and rather asked the learned Judge 'not to cross his limits,' while going out of all limits insofar as he alone was concerned thereby undermining the majesty and Authority of law."

Video clips that went viral on social media platforms captured parts of this exchange, including Tewari's declaration: "Sir, please don’t try to humiliate any person… The country is burning. The country is burning with the judiciary."

The High Court's Response: A Firm Stance on Judicial Authority

The viral nature of the video prompted the High Court to act decisively. The five-judge bench called for the original video from the Central Project Coordinator (CPC) and played it in open court during the suo motu hearing on Friday, October 17.

Invoking its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the bench found that the advocate's utterances constituted a prima facie case of criminal contempt. Criminal contempt, under the Act, includes any act that scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court.

Adding a compelling layer to the proceedings, the court noted that when Mr. Tewari appeared in person before the larger bench, he "submitted that he had 'no remorse or regret whatsoever for whatever he has done or said in the Court'." This defiant stance likely reinforced the bench's decision to issue the contempt notice.

The order stated: "Prima facie we are of the considered view that the utterances of the Opposite Party amounts to criminal contempt and while invoking our power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, we direct the Registry to register a suo motu criminal contempt case against the Opposite Party."

Mr. Tewari waived the formal service of the notice and has been granted three weeks to file his response.

Legal Implications and Broader Questions for the Bar

This case transcends a mere conflict between an individual advocate and a judge; it touches upon fundamental principles that underpin the administration of justice.

1. The Line Between Advocacy and Contempt: Lawyers are expected to be fearless and robust in their arguments to secure justice for their clients. However, this duty is balanced by an overarching obligation to maintain the dignity and decorum of the court. The Jharkhand High Court's action serves as a stark reminder that the judiciary will police this boundary vigorously. The core legal question will be whether Mr. Tewari's conduct crossed from permissible, albeit aggressive, advocacy into an impermissible attack on the institution of the judiciary itself.

2. The Power of Suo Motu Cognizance: The High Court's ability to initiate proceedings on its own motion, particularly under Article 215, is a powerful tool to protect the judicial process from being undermined. This case is a classic example of the judiciary acting as its own guardian when its authority is perceived to be under direct challenge. The formation of a five-judge bench to hear the matter underscores the seriousness with which the institution views the incident.

3. The Double-Edged Sword of Live-Streaming: The incident gained widespread attention precisely because it was recorded and shared. While live-streaming of court proceedings is hailed as a significant step towards transparency and public access, it also means that every interaction is subject to public scrutiny. This case may prompt a re-evaluation of conduct guidelines for all participants in a live-streamed courtroom, as moments of conflict can be decontextualized and amplified on social media, potentially damaging public confidence in the judicial system.

4. The "No Remorse" Defense: Mr. Tewari's stated lack of regret is a critical factor. In contempt jurisprudence, a sincere apology at the earliest opportunity is often a significant mitigating factor. By contrast, a defiant posture can be viewed by the court as an aggravation of the original contempt, suggesting a deliberate and continued disregard for the court's authority. His formal response will be highly anticipated to see if this position is maintained.

As the legal community watches this case unfold, it will serve as a crucial touchstone for defining the modern advocate's role and the judiciary's tolerance for dissent and confrontation within the courtroom walls. The final outcome will not only determine the fate of one advocate but will also send a powerful message about the standards of professional conduct expected before the bench in an era of unprecedented judicial transparency.